1990 PLP 585 (SCMR)

Although according to the office this petition is barred by 67 days but on the grounds urged in the prisoner's application for condonation and in the interest of justice I condone the delay‑. According to the prosecution case deceased Basher Ahmad was assaulted by the petitioner at about 1.110 p.m. on 23rd March. 1983, on the roadside near Khanpur Bus Stand and was inflicted 14 incised injuries with a knife on various parts of the body, as a result of which he died on the spot. Besides Muhammad Nawaz the first informant reliance was placed on the ocular testimony of three witnesses, namely, Abdul Malik, Abdul Hamid and Abdul Majid. Corroboratory evidence was in the form of recovery of blood‑stained clothes from the person of the petitioner and recovery of crime weapon also blood‑stained at the pointing of the petitioner. The motive disclosed by the prosecution was some dispute over the sale of newspapers by the deceased at Sama Satta Railway Station between the acquitted co‑accused Shaikh Tariq and the deceased. The trial Court accepted the testimony of Abdul Hameed and Abdul Malik (P.Ws) as reliable and trustworthy. Their testimony was found amply corroborated by the recoveries which were fully established. The High Court has, in its reappraisal of evidence agreed with the trial Court and has pointed out that in the final analysis the testimony of Abdul Hameed (P.W. 6) who was a natural witness of the locality and totally disinterested, was above board and not liable to be rejected on any principle of assessment of evidence in criminal cases. His testimony is indeed supported by the medical evidence and recoveries of the crime weapon as well as blood‑stained clothes from the petitioner. I have perused the evidence on record. I have also perused the petition filed by the petitioner and the grounds urged (herein. Reference has been made to some contradictions in the evidence of the eye‑witnesses but these are not material as held by the Courts below, which have adequately dealt with the same. So far as the ground relating to the F.I.R. having been registered after preliminary investigation, suffice it to say that even if it was really so, this fact alone will not in any way react on the evidence of Abdul Hameed and Abdul Malik (P.Ws). They had no enmity with the petitioner or any motive to implicate him falsely in a case of capital charge. With regard to the ground that one of the recovery witnesses was the brother of the deceased, also the High Court has rightly held that the factum of recovery has been established on other reliable evidence. The grounds relating to the improbability of the petitioner wearing the blood‑stained clothes on his person even two days after the occurrence and that motive was not established by reliable evidence are not sufficient to upset the findings recorded by the Courts below. Nothing appears in the cross‑examination of any witness probing the question of circumstances in which the accused was arrested making it improbable for him to wear the sane clothes which he had put on at the time of occurrence. There is no reason for the investigating agency or the witness to falsely depose with regard to the recovery of blood‑stained clothes if they did not belong to the petitioner. In any case the recovery of the crime weapon at the instance of the petitioner is sufficient corroboration of the ocular testimony. For all these reasons I am of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioner is well‑founded and does not deserve interference. I would accordingly I dismiss the petition for leave to appeal. . SAAD SAOOD JAN

I agree. Leave is granted, N.H.Q./A‑668/S Petition dismissed.